KEYWORD: Guideline G; Guideline H; Guideline E
DIGEST: Applicant makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.  The Board’s
authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge
committed harmful error.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 10-10821.a1
DATE: 03/29/2012
DATE: March 29, 2012
In Re:
-------------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-10821
APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On April 8, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption),
Guideline H (Drug Involvement) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested that her case be
adjudicated on the written record.  On January 10, 2012, after the close of the record, Administrative
Judge Joan Caton Anthony denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed
pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.  She
states affirmatively that she is not “accusing the Judge of doing anything wrong.”  She states simply
that she disagrees with the final conclusion and then articulates at some length why she disagrees
and  why she believes her case should be adjudicated favorably.
Many of Applicant’s representations in her brief, as well as numerous attachments to the
brief, contain facts not part of the record below.  The Board may not consider new evidence on
appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Additionally, the Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is
limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.  See
Directive ¶ E3.1.32.  The Board does not review cases de novo.  Therefore, the decision of the Judge
denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. 
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan 
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett      
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin       
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board